Non-communicable diseases including cancer are a huge overlooked problem in the developing world. Only one in 10 children who suffer from cancer in low and middle income countries survives compared to eight in 10 in developed countries.

I am shocked that this is only the second time that the UN has convened to address health issues. (I realize that there is WHO to focus on the topic, however, it is crucial enough to warrant the attention of the UN as a whole.) While non-communicable diseases also require attention and research on a global level, they should take a back seat to communicable diseases such as malaria that ravage populations and kill thousands of children constantly. These diseases have preventative measures that need to be implemented world-wide.

Though there are already many cures for different NCDs, there are not nearly enough. Technology and resources are potentially unlimited, but solutions require time and money to put these resources to use. In the mean time, I think that the US should become even more active in raising awareness and educating other nations, because in the end, their success affects ours.

This trend is truly to be expected. It shouldn't be a surprise that as more people gain access to health care that we will no longer die of infectious diseases. Urbanization causes more people to work jobs that encourage sedentary lifestyles. I don't think a U.N. summit is going to keep Joe Cubicle from getting off of work and picking up fast food on the way home. People understand the risks of poor diet and lack of exercise. Our species is not built to live forever, so just because there is a shift in the cause of death I don't see any real reason for concern. We have to die one way or another.

These deaths come from pure stupidity. Im sure that alot of these deaths come from people who develop cancer from still hit tanning beds and smoke even though they know the risks. Banning these types of cancer causing things will reduce related deaths some, but it will never banish them completely because there will always be the dumb people who continue to use them.

In two decades there wont be a Big Pharma. Indian 'generic' drig makers would have acquired (swallowed) them all up. Good times for the poor. And no... there wont be a dent in innovation as some illuminatti here believe
---------

Really? So to date - what have the indian generic drug makers discovered so far? Are there any grounds at all to suggest these companies will suddently start innovating?

-------------------------

Of course there is. But since you choose to live in the bubble that the west created for you, there is hardly any point in trying to explain. If you are really wanted to know the answer you'd have found it yourself instead of posting
condescending tripe

Yes. We seem to be agreeing at some point. You and I both know the UN, as it is, is blatantly ineffective with regards to the inherent powers it has. In fact, the powers of the UN come from it's member nations' consensus to getting things done the right way in the right manner, yet what happens is often contradictory.

It's just a way to postponing things. Saying yes to doing something about it, leaving large avenues to discuss, yet when a decision has to be made, back off using diplomatic tools at disposal.

The UNSC is still ruled by the triumphant of WWII. The position since then has widely deviated, yet such change hasn't been absorbed into any of UN's self-modification processes.

The UN Human Rights Committee is the largest failure of it's kind. After the Lockerbie bombing, instead of a unilateral action against Libya, the UN preferred to elect Libya as the chair of the committee in 2003. This is just a single example from the bulk of it.

It failed to fight terrorism, it failed to fight regional conflicts, it failed to fight against the rise of nuclear weapons, it failed to fight against human-rights abuses.

Regardless. You're belief in fatalism annoys me to my very roots.

What according to you, has the UN got right over the years? Something solid it's done to reaffirm world peace? Has it been any more stronger than anyone of it's individual member countries?

An alternative to the UN is a reformed UN.
It has to be modified to suit the current scenario. How exactly, is not for us to decide. Being a part of the common citizenry, it's our right to point out the flaws in the organisation, and it's the inherent duty of the organisation to correct itself.

The UN should be modified in such manner that it hands the power of regional conflicts to regional countries, such that it maintains it's supervision, yet leaves it to countries within the region to decide. Of course, it doesn't mean the wider world would be eliminated, but ground level discussions should start from the region itself.

Saying something is wrong, yet not pointing out it's flaws isn't the best option we have in hand.

Your assertion is, pointing out the flaws without having an alternative is wrong.

My assertion is, pointing out the flaws is as important as having an alternative. Have one, and the other one would take care of itself.

Countries plagued by NCDs don't need our money; they need our knowledge. Most of cardiovascular disease comes from poor diet of consuming too many saturated fats. That's why it is the number one killer in America. The difference here is, our people have the availability of knowledge of a good diet and choose to ignore it to be able to eat their Big Macs multiple times a week, while in most low- to middle- income countries are not aware of the dietary consequences of many of the things they eat. Knowledge of diet and exercise is what these people really need.

Nice ideal and rhetorics, but please explain what exactly you are proposing as an alternative to the UN.

"Point is, doesn't matter however large a forum you have, until and unless all parts of it conform with one another in the most optimal manner, the whole project is bound to fail."

That's the main problem, indeed. The parts don't agree with each other. How will you get them to agree? You can move to smaller, more homogeneous blocs, or accept that things will always be difficult, for a UN or your alternative policing organisation.

In the first case, how will you prevent conflict between the blocs?

Let's take the hypothetical example of two parties not agreeing to a common solution and the stronger one has sufficient support from the a powerful outside party to dictate the situation on the ground. Difficult for the UN, but what kind of alternative policing organisation would make the difference? One with a large standing army?

We seem to agree that it can do with quite a bit of reform, but I'd be careful to lambast the UN before your better alternative is in place.

Would be interesting to see a guestimate on the percentages of Cancer and cardio disease could be attributed to tobacco, drug, alcohol usage and diet (fats, sugers)....

As for lower middle income countries having the most dying from non-communicable diseases, well don't they have some of the most people of the segments, while conversely data may not be all that great for lower income countries?

We need international policing. We need an arena where parties from different parts of the world can come together, take "decisive" conclusions and go back with a game plan.

The UN has become dysfunctional precisely because it's structural framework is intrinsically destructive.

It's like building the largest and most fuel efficient airplane with cabin depressurization difficulties.
Point is, doesn't matter however large a forum you have, until and unless all parts of it conform with one another in the most optimal manner, the whole project is bound to fail.

Your second alternative is exactly what I'm looking for.
A substitution of the current framework of the United Nations.

Something which is more vigorous, less interdependent on a cartel of countries, and targeted to improving the world order.

******

"That would be good for the strong but very bad for the weak, and arguably would lead to injustice."

Arguably, the UN has done nothing better.

-We've all seen what happened during the Arab Spring.
-We've all seen what is HAPPENING to prevent internal conflicts in
the Arab Spring.
-We've all seen how effective the UN has been in resolving the Arab-Israel Conflict.

We need a policing organisation, but if it's the UN, I'd rather be off with nothing.

People with communicable disease are caused by others, while people with non- communicable diseases are caused by themselves. First, unhealthy living habit is the biggest factor cause non-communicable, such as eating too much fried snack.Second, the living condition is bad, full of S and P. Third, the social competition is very acute, many people live in depression. I think the situation is more seriou in developing country. And so our rich coutry should take more attation to the living condition , which is the most important human right ,while not always focus on politics. I am a poor man, and i have no house, no enough food, no money to see the doctor, so i have to strive for the living ,I don't care the democracy.

It’s interesting that the prevalence of NCDs is increasing in developing countries. I typically associate cardiovascular diseases and cancers as results of the “benefits” of living in the developed world, such as access to technology and unhealthy meal options. What has been the change in these developing countries to cause this fairly significant increase of NCDS and are we going to have to dole out money to these countries when we are having the same issues in the developed world? I am very curious to see what comes out of this UN meeting and how it could impact current research and preventative medicines.
---------------------------------------------------

That's an interesting point. I'll give my opinion without backing it up with any facts.

1) An increasing middle class in developing countries means an increase in spending power - so increased intake of fat, sugar and calories all come with that.

2) As a country develops it also has access to better healthcare, safety standards and consequently increased lifespan. Most of these NCDs such as diabetes, heart disease and cancer tend to be late onset. If you die of Malaria / cholera / then you won't have had the opportunity to suffer from an NCD.

In recent years, there is a clear pattern of genetically modified diseases like E-colli, Aids, Ebola, Sars, Bird flu, Mad Cow disease etc. that may have released or escaped from the Germs laboratories around the world.
-----------------------------------------------

In species with a much faster rate of reproduction - genetic changes become apparent much faster. Thats why the fruit fly was famously used in early experiments (even though that was selective breeding, rather than genetic mutations)